Seventeen Years on: what really happened on 9/11?

Introduction

On Friday, August 31, I had an email from OffGuardian editor Catte:

How do you feel about reviewing a new 9/11 book for the anniversary? I know you’re a sceptic but that is why I’d value your input …

Two years ago, on the fifteenth anniversary of 9/11, OffGuardian ran my review of Dylan Avery’s Loose Change. Except it wasn’t a review but a pouring of vitriol on the film’s central assertion that the events of September 11, 2001 were an inside job.

Reception below the line was hostile. But among the cat-calls were voices I could not ignore: voices of reason from dudes who’d done their homework and whose tones were sober; friendly even. I promised to re-assess the truther case and return either to concede and apologise or reaffirm my views with better arguments. I gave no date but strongly and at the time sincerely implied it would be a few months tops. Not two years.

Why the delay? I’m not afraid of saying, I was wrong. I’ve had practise and should I find it was me, not the 911 truthers, who’d been deluded it wouldn’t be personally implicating in the way coming out as an active paedophile or closet tory would. As fess-ups go, it would be at the egg-on-face as opposed to long custodial sentence end of the scale. I can do egg on face. Like I said, I’ve had practice.

The delay is due – I’m not offering this as excuse but as reason – to my aversion to what looked a right royal rabbit hole. Investing scores if not hundreds of hours sifting a mire of claim and counter claim did not appeal. Now if you say this was too big a question to be back-burnered on such flimsy grounds, I’d agree, though I’ve not been idle. I’ve had much to go at with mendacious narratives on Syria, Russia and Corbyn, while trying to convey, mainly to those on the left, that capitalism’s deep unfairness is the least of it; that its innermost laws of motion pose an existential threat.

But a promise is a promise, especially one made from a hole of my own digging. If I resented the diverting of time and energy, I hadn’t far to look for the culprit.

Within minutes of reading Catte’s email I’d hit send on this reply:

Could be an opportunity…What kind of turnaround time are you thinking?

But a further apology is in order. Regardless of whether I still thought truthers wrong, I was always going to have to say sorry for the sneering tone of my 2016 piece. So sure had I been of the logic of my case, a logic I’ll return to, I’d seen no need to address the empirical underpinnings of theirs.

(At the time, my exposure to truthism had come from armchair conspiracists too idle or brain fogged to put together a decent argument but happy to bang out link-heavy emails with a simple subtext: you’re wrong – read this and this and this … Plus, of course, Avery’s film: so bad that some truthers saw it as part of the cover up; a false flag in its own right to damn by its very shoddiness their case against the official narrative. Indeed, one BTL critic of my 2016 piece picked up on this point to accuse me of straw-mannery.)

So … apologies, mea culpas and attempts at self analysis duly offered, let me turn to 9/11 Unmasked, by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth. I’ll start with what we can agree is the ‘official narrative’.

September 11, 2001: the official account

This has two threads. One is the popular perception, framed by media coverage at the time, of what happened. The other is the combined wisdom of later government reports, most importantly that of the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) in 2005. Both threads assert that nineteen devout Muslims hijacked four airliners to fly them at high profile targets in separate but coordinated acts of mass murder and suicide.

New York’s World Trade Centre (WTC) Towers 1 and 2 took devastating hits to, respectively, floors 93-99 and 75-85. On impact the two planes, both from Boston Logan with tanks full for long haul flight, sprayed tons of aviation fuel (kerosene aka paraffin) whose ignition triggered an inferno so intense as to melt the steel skeletons of both towers[1] and cause not only their spectacular freefall but, ten hours later, that of WTC 7, which no plane had struck. No plan was in place to stop such an attack because no military scenario had envisaged transcontinental airliners as missiles.

A third plane was flown so low as to bury itself in the first and second floors of the Pentagon Building, across the Potomac from Washington DC.

The fourth was brought down in Pennslyvania by passengers – knowing themselves doomed but alerted by phone calls of the New York attacks – bent on thwarting the hijackers and saving other lives.

Before turning to the methodology used by Griffin and Woodworth to query this official narrative, a word about its ‘popular’ and ‘formal’ threads. The authors do a good job of showing that, where the two are in contradiction on matters of fact, we needn’t be 24-carat conspiracy freaks to suppose a tidying up – by revision, withheld evidence and refusal to acknowledge glaring inconsistencies – of contemporaneous accounts. Nor to suppose that such airbrushing on the part of subsequent inquiries goes beyond what we’d expect of officialdom covering up incompetence. Rather, to suppose airbrushing on this scale to have only one conceivable purpose: removing hostages to fortune and threats to overall narrative coherence and credibility.

9/11 Unmasked: the methodology

[we] decided … to form a panel of twenty-some independent researchers well-versed on 9/11 with a broad spectrum of expertise. Dubious claims embedded in the official account of 9/11 would be presented to the panelists separately to see if they, with no consultation among themselves, would reach consensus on whether there was sufficient basis to declare the claim false.

In response to our invitation to potential members, a panel of twenty-three people with varying professional backgrounds came together to apply disciplined analysis to the verifiable evidence about the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Panel includes people from the fields of physics, chemistry, structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, piloting, airplane crash investigation, medicine, journalism, psychology, and religion. The members are named on the Acknowledgments page.

– Introduction, pp vii-viii

I’m not happy with this. People from the fields of … leaves too much scope for cherry picking a-priori truthers who may not represent their disciplines, or even have relevant expertise. As for that in response to our invitation … what would we make of a trial, for black-on-white capital murder in fifties Alabama, whose jurors had responded to a call for home-owning volunteers?

Finally, the authors don’t say what steps they took to safeguard no consultation.

In peer reviewed scientific work these would be terminal flaws[2], while a criminal defence team would have a field day discrediting the prosecution’s expert witnesses. But here? Given the context, are they fatal? That rather depends on whether this ‘methodology’ is crucial to the authors’ case, or gimmick in an otherwise sober presentation of evidence too compelling to need such treatment. I think the latter.

Structure and tone

Here I’m more impressed. The tone is lucid, free of sensationalism and to a high standard of literacy. These are good writers, too confident in the strength of their case to go in for flashy phrasing, cheap shots or intellectual short cuts. As a bonus, proof reading is to a high standard and that’s significant given the intricacy of argument and supporting detail.

But what about structure? Here 9/11 Unmasked manages the conflicting pulls of clarity, and engagement with complex detail whose significance could easily be lost on the most attentive reader. It does so by the tried and tested method of layering content – never less than three tiers; four in labyrinthine arguments – to present sub-claims, micro-points and supporting factoids without their obscuring the bigger picture. I dived in seas of minutiae without fear of drowning.

(Two carps. My PDF version could and should have hot-linked its 875 inline references to footnote text, enabling sceptics to make fast random checks as to whether a footnote really does the job implied in the main text. Given such controversial content, and high standard of presentation elsewhere, it will be a pity if this is not corrected. Similarly, a book so necessarily replete with acronyms really does need a glossary.)

Still on structure, the 320 page book’s main section divides into 51 short chapters, each addressing a discrete issue, or set of interrelated issues, arising from the official account. All chapters have the same structure: introduction .. official account .. best evidence .. conclusion. Where successive official accounts differ – often as not with that same whiff of ‘tidying up’ – the account-best evidence-conclusion cycle iterates until the chapter ends with an overall conclusion. By such tiering, bird’s eye views give way to two or more descending levels of detail in an elegant solution to an old problem: how to evaluate the trees without obscuring the forest. Speaking as a retired academic, if this were a textbook I’d be singing its praises to students.

Nature of the evidence

In challenging virtually every aspect of the official narrative, the authors’ evidence falls into these broad and not always orthogonal categories:

Scientific knowledge, on such as the melting point of steel and whether any fire triggered by exploding aviation fuel could reach it. This impacts on the crown jewel of truther claims: that the towers could not have been brought down, in the manner the world saw on its TV screens, by the forces claimed by NIST 2005 as sole cause.[3]

Architectural, engineering and other professional knowhow on such as: whether those WTC beams and columns could come apart in the manner claimed by NIST; whether any man with minimal flight training could execute that low altitude turn into the Pentagon; whether in 2001 it was possible to make a cell phone call from a plane at 30,000 feet.

Forensic evidence, on such as whether nanothermite (classic signature of controlled detonation) was found in the WTC debris; and whether CCTV footage, placing the nineteen men in the places claimed, can be relied on.

Witnesses on the scene whose statements pose serious problems for the official narrative.

Inconsistencies within the official narrative on points where, even after ‘tidying up’, it lacks internal coherence else uses circular or other flawed forms of reasoning.

Lack of fit with known realities, such as that flying an airliner into a skyscraper, far from being an unforeseen event, had in fact been played out in wargame scenarios.

Suspicious behaviour by key players, in particular Cheney, Rumsfeld and senior military commanders; and abnormal levels of put-option and short-selling in the days before 9/11.

As implied by my recurring use of ‘such as’, the above barely scratches the surface of the evidence assembled in this book. But how good is it?

Quality of evidence

I’m not a physicist, engineer, military expert or lawyer. What I am (by training, disposition and life experience) is good at evaluating, once I take the time to consider them, the strengths and weaknesses of arguments, especially when laid out with such commendable clarity. If the hard facts deployed to support higher level assertions bear up to expert scrutiny (and if they don’t, the authors are fools as well as charlatans since expert scrutiny is inevitable) then this is as strong a prima facie case for throwing out NIST, and its predecessors, as ever confronted an official cover up.

It follows that an inquiry quite unprecedented – a truly independent panel with no-holds access to all materials and witnesses, and immune from intimidation by pretty much the most powerful interests on earth – would be needed in reply to the gauntlet Griffin and Woodworth have thrown down.

I fear that no such inquiry will occur. Instead, eminent psychologists who’ve never – as I’d never – deigned to engage with evidential details will continue to publish acclaimed drivel on the pathology and pitiable delusions of all conspiracy theorists, citing all 9/11 truthers as textbook examples.

What about the logical case?

I promised to revisit this. The problems for me were always the number of conspirators and, related, complexity of so comprehensively elaborate an inside job, and whether the putative gains might justify the risks. I’ll consider each in turn.

Numbers. The only safe number for a conspiracy is one. Since that’s an oxymoron, let’s move to two. At least you’ll know, if you didn’t blab, who did. But when we get to three, boy, that’s when the problems really kick in. But here? Here we’re talking hundreds if not thousands of conspirators, every last one a party to mass murder and yet, seventeen years on, we’ve had not a single breaking of ranks; not one death bed confession.

Complexity and scale. While America has form on false flag ops, they’ve been simple affairs. It’s one thing to fake or even execute an attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin. That can be done with a couple of light craft manned by a few Navy SEALs, hand picked men whose omerta culture minimises risk of leak. But if hard core truthers are right – I’ll come to soft core shortly – this would be a false flag op of unprecedented and incredible dimensions. To what end? The question brings us to my final logical objection.

Risk/benefits.The most cited rationale for 9/11 as an inside job is that it legitimated the ‘War on Terror’ – its Guantanamos, Patriot Acts and expansion of the spy-state – and/or wars on the Middle East which, as many know and I’ve argued elsewhere, are not driven by the reasons Western leaders and media would have us believe.

I don’t downplay the value to the US ruling class of such legitimation, but do question whether such prizes needed so elaborate, risky and, yes, evil[4] a deed. To evaluate such a proposition, the two putative gains need to be disentangled.

On wars in the Middle East, we’ve seen millions slain and nations ruined on the basis of casus belli far simpler: WMDs; nasty dictators. And while ‘going after’ Bin Laden worked in Afghanistan, it was an embarrassment in Saddam’s Iraq: no haven for salafists. It’s true of course that people told they face a terrible threat aren’t the most critical thinkers, but that can be turned on its head. If it’s so easy to fool the worried masses, why bother with such an elaborate ‘reason’ as 9/11, given the logistical problems summarised here?

I have an easier time buying the idea of the War on Terror as legitimated by 911. At least you don’t have to explain, even to audiences as credulous as American patriots, how the likes of Saddam wind up in bed with jihadists. But the question ending the previous paragraph stands. It still doesn’t stack up.

So that’s my logical case (oh, and there is the small matter of why the conspirators left so glaring an audit trail) and Griffin and Woodworth don’t even try to address it. In this they are as one with other truthers I know. Ditto in offering no alternative scenario for what they think happened on 9/11: not even for the softer version that Team Bush didn’t plan an inside job but, forewarned of an attack, let it happen for reasons already sketched out.

But before we damn them for such omissions, far less see their case as fatally flawed, let’s ask this question. Does 9/11 Unmasked cross, by its detailed evidence and reasoning for rejecting the official account, the threshold for being taken seriously? I say it does.

Now let’s ask another. Does it fall to those with compelling evidence of a monstrous crime to say why it happened? It would be dashed sporting of them, for sure, but can we in fairness demand it? I say we can’t.

In the world of Agatha Christie, Poirot ends each case by assembling the suspects in the conservatory. Tweaking waxed moustache, he eliminates one unpleasant character after another before fixing on the unpleasant character who is also the killer. He then sets out a convincing but unforeseen motive, followed by evidence to apply noose to neck.

In the world of Agatha Christie.

In my world, if you and others, upstanding citizens all, catch me with jam smeared face, crumbs to lips and three jam tarts in my pocket, still warm from cook’s oven; if, moreover, you have six witnesses of equally unblemished character swearing they saw me climb through the vicar’s kitchen window to lift the tarts and leg it, need you then, to secure a conviction for aggravated burglary, disprove my indignant protests, backed by two drinking pals and a dodgy doctor, that I loathe jam, have a lethal allergy to pastry and too low an IQ to have pulled off so audacious a heist? I say you needn’t.

On which note I’ll close – with this recommendation for all who deem, as I had, the 9/11 truther case too daft for serious consideration. Buy this book.

NOTES:

It’s important to note that claims of melting steel do not feature in the most important of the 9/11 reports.

Peer review is on balance a good thing, but not the be-all and end-all many assume. In times of paradigm shift within a science it can be a reactionary force, while in the context of accusations of mass conspiracy, demanding it comes close to circular reasoning.

To be fair, whatever was said prior to NIST 2005, an FAQ page on its site does not make the molten steel claim. Rather, it says ‘… the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Also to be fair, 9/11 Unmasked avoids a widespread strawman argument. Its Chapter 2 asserts only that: ‘… office fires, even if fed by jet fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not have weakened the steel structure of these buildings sufficiently to collapse as suddenly as they did’

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that killing three thousand Americans is more evil than slaughtering millions of Arabs by sanctions, bombs and shells of depleted uranium. I’m saying that those who order death from afar will tell themselves, as they lay head to pillow at night, that it was to save greater suffering. Maybe those authorising 9/11 as inside job, if that’s what happened, will do the same but, given the way humans manage cognitive dissonance, they’ll have a tougher time of it.

57 Comments

The aim of the Consensus panel on which this book is based is to present the best evidence – ‘against the official story’. That is not the best evidence about the events of Sept. 11th 2001. This is a self selected group of people who are active in the 911 truth movement and therefore have little or no objectivity about the evidence. Anyone who reads this book and considers they are getting some kind of sober , objective view of the evidence about 9/11 , will only realise they are not if the know something about the evidence about 9/11. All of the evidence. If they think David Ray Griffin is going to give them all of the evidence then the very fact that the intention of this book is to give a one-sided view of the evidence should not be lost on them.

‘One sided’ is a bit reductionist.
I haven’t read the book.
I don’t have a sense that it does unmask the whole truth, so much as uncover further masking. The 911 event is a very complex set of shaped charges in the mind – as well as in the buildings.

But the one sided assertions of the official narrative add up to an inconceivable conspiracy theory – unless perhaps one’s world view or career depends on believing it – or at least not openly challenging it or being seen to oppose those who do.

And so the sense of being given a false account and denied the true generates an emotional bias of distrusting all and everything being said. Not surprisingly, for the laws of physics were suspended while the ability to effect such outcomes says ‘do as I say, not as I do’. To me the ability to effect and enforce THAT is in some ways more of an imprint of terror than blowing up the WTC.

Because it is an act of terror on the mind – as the post truth stamp of the New Boot Order. “Reality is what we say it is because WE say it” and gainsaying made-up reality attracts the invalidating status of denialism, hate speech, thought crime or thought disorder. Which if reacted to, invokes hate in reaction that is then used to confirm the ‘diagnosis’ & etc.

The alternate scenarios to the official version are hardly consensual – excepting in refusal to accept the official narrative as the true or full account, and hence either covering up for or forced to shut up.

Whatever ‘really happened’ becomes secondary to the accepted and acted upon beliefs as to what happened – including the the continuing effects upon the minds of those who are either defending a world view as if any other view is an evil threat, or seeking to regain a coherent world view as a result of its breakdown – in which such evils can be perpetrated with impunity upon what is then a voiceless and helpless subjection. I see no reason to believe the narrative control stopped at the official account – and is as likely to become its own captured opposition – at least to the ability to check or limit any threat in the terms of the vested interests or agendas of those who under one pretext or another participated in effecting or allowing the 911 attack to happen.

I recently said that for some, the 911 event broke the spell of a false worldview – which is to say a false sense of self and world. What we choose then to do may be in desire for true foundation, or in futile attempt to regain a world that isn’t true – that we feel denied and deprived of and this predicate in vengeance – which I sense to be the signature energetic of the 911 attack – whoever and however it was effected.

Whatever ‘happens’, there is yet my own choice as to what I use it for. Triggering emotional reaction is a way of inducing a default ‘choice’ through false framing or indeed false flagging. I doubt not but the ‘science’ of manipulating human beings is one of the principle weapons of power – including the social and global engineering of ‘consent’ or at least conformity and compliance.

Paradoxically I choose ground zero to represent the zero point – as in plasma physics of a true Universal Stillness from which all else expresses – rather than the nuclear ‘effect’ of the power to destroy. This is like the Russians under the Soviet, learning to reverse or invert the official news – and which is now a role taken on by the Western Powers.

Much that seems powerful is powerless to change and like a Faustian pact, rendered hollow by its self-betrayals.

When anything becomes a focus of emotionally charged attention, it becomes a source of leverage or marketing to the reinforcement of that identity. People are disposed to hear what reinforces their sense of self and learn ways not to hear what challenges and so ‘threatens’ its foundational beliefs. This also applies to vested interests such as the Military Industrial establishment. If anything is deemed too big to fail, then someone else is made to pay the price. I see this as pervasive to propping up a false, hollow or corrupted model – or ‘world-view’. But it may be experienced as core survival instinct or necessity in avoidance or deferring of a greater evil. This is not to say that it IS a greater evil, but that fear and belief MAKE it so in the mind of such investment.

The simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roof of wtc 7 is evidence of a controlled demolition and the ridiculous NIST assertion that this building collapsed due to fire in the face of that is evidence of a conspiracy.

I have seen quite a few controlled demolitions and sometimes the building collapses in the centre and then the ends fall inwards to that collapsed centre, or the building falls over sideways onto some empty piece of land or it collapses in a cascading sequence starting at one end. I don’t see where ‘the simultaneous freefall of all four corners’ is somehow a characteristic of controlled demolition.And I’ve only seen one corner being measured ,by David chandler for example. Measuring an acceleration is something that is done in a laboratory, using video and high speed clocks reference scales. I have never seen anyone using pixels on an unclear video to make measurements of any kind let alone make any kind of definitive statements about them. If people say it is not a structural collapse due to fire and that that has never happened , then they have nothing to compare it to and can’t say what it would look like, not having seen it before. The one thing that is common to them all controlled demolitions is the very loud .percussive sounds that precede and accompany the collapse. I have seen and heard 23 videos of the collapse of WTC7 and there are no sounds of explosions to be heard at all. After seventeen years I have not seen any evidence whatever of all the cut steel that would have had to be lying all over the site after the collapse of the building.
This is without even addressing any of the credibility or logical issues that inevitably have to be involved in a plan carried out by people , issues that have nothing to do with physics and science.

The dynamics of the collapse of WTC 7 prove it was a controlled demolition. Photos of the rubble pile show the exterior was pulled inward, as it fell on top.

It doesn’t matter whether you can or cannot hear explosive noises in the video. In that vain you should also realize that the cameras were quite a distance from the building and you need a high gain microphone in that case, not the short range types used by reporters for interviews. There were a lot of eye witnesses that talked about hearing explosive noise. It was also only necessary to pull the core, which being inside would dampen the noise emanating outside the exterior.

It isn’t that what we think does not materialise results, but that the results may not be what we want.
Truth is first and foremost a self-integrity. We can invite others to join in a love of truth and freedom from lies that cant truly serve us, but we cant ‘wait around’ as if life depends on that – at least not without giving power of decision over to other people or circumstances outside our control.

Death of loved ones can break our ‘world’ – and under circumstances of ill-intent and withholding or twisting of truth, are likely to be even more unsettling.

I feel that truth is where peace is – even if the breaking of our illusions is devastating to what we WANTED to be true.

WANTING truth to be different than it Is – has to be a source of conflict – no matter how many people ‘agree’ to believe it.

Why are people even trying to convince someone who didn’t understand when FIRST confronted with the almost endless and impossible physical anomalies that we have been lied to on a staggering scale re 9/11? Only idiots and the wilfully blind don’t recognise the obvious.

Exactly why I valued my [Internet] friendship with Dave “9/12” McGowan: he didn’t screw around with half-arsed “activist”-identity politics. More than can be said of 99% of latter day “activists”. Apropos of which and in light of your comment: if anyone older than 25 in 2001 didn’t already know by 9/12/2001 what Jonathan Cook describes in his latest Counterpunch article – that the entire system is irremediably, systemically corrupt, andbuilt on centuries of equally deep, systemic corruption – and start from there then the time they spend signalling any latter day “activist” tendencies they choose to express might better be spent stomping the brains out of the baby they have previously discarded with its bathwater.

There is an assertion that hundreds if not thousands needed to be involved if this was some kind of inside job
This need not be so.
It needs only 1 or 2 highly placed conspirators giving orders for events that can serve two functions.
The war games on the day served a very handy distraction for example, and what was the theme again? A terror attack.

Physics suggests that these towers simply could not fall at that speed given the suggested mechanism of collapse.
It is also interesting that there have been several far more severe fires in steel framed buildings since that did not induce collapse.
Even if the mechanism eagerly popularized by Popular Mechanics (not a peer review journal) happened, exactly how were the massive central concrete columns around the lift wells destroyed, to ground level, given that the energy from gravity can only be used once?

If the process was one of gravitational collapse (ie down), how exactly did small bone fragments of victims get ejected sideways to be found a year later on the roofs of adjacent buildings?

All I know is the official version has holes. Big ones.
It is simply not good enough to wield a rusty Occam’s Axe to a scenario as complex as this.

Two impossibilities occurred this day.
EITHER almost every level of the US Govt was incompetent.
OR nearly everything went right on 4 planes flown by incompetents.
The odds …

Let’s quote the late Michael Ruppert here, from his 9/11 magnum opus ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ (2004): ‘The number of people with complete foreknowedge of the attacks of September 11th would likely not exceed two dozen’ (p.3).

The war games on the day had little or no effect on what happened on the day. Ask yourself a few questions:

-Were these the first exercises ever held by NORAD? – or had they held exercises , for years , when there were no terrorist attacks. They held exercises when there no terrorist attacks and the were holding exercises when there were terrorist attacks. I’m not sure what they are supposed to do really.

-Should NORAD not have been holding any exercises on 9/11? Should they have kept that day free of exercises?

-Are terrorists not allowed to hijack planes when NORAD are holding exercises?

-If NORAD had to be sure that there would be no terrorist attacks when they were holding exercises, when would they ever hold exercises? Should NORAD never hold exercises because there could be some kind of terrorist attack while they were holding exercises?

Can I commend the research of Peter Dale Scott to you, if you have not already read them. He has been researching the Deep State events, or structural deep events (SDEs – the term he coined) since the 1990s. He thinks they are all interlinked, and I agree with him.

Specifically, in reference to the planning of 9/11 – how handy would “an $8 billion communications and logistics program for an alternative emergency communications network” – the National Communications System – that was untraceable, left no record, and basically does not exist …officially.

Especially if that network was part of the Continuity of Government planning. We know Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of this for 20 years, and on the morning of 9/11 they went absent without leave – leaving the country leaderless. They then suspended the Constitution and implemented COG control. Smells fishy to me!

With such a network at your disposal, 20 years of planning, and black money from international drugs and terror (see article) you wouldn’t necessarily need “hundreds if not thousands of conspirators”? John “torture memo” Yoo is a good example of how one psychopath can disrupt the DOJ to invent the ‘divine right’ of President’s to do as they please. Nor would you expect the planners to come clean: they are part of the transnational Deep State after all. The way intelligence is compartmented and ‘need to know’ …maybe only half a dozen of the most evil men in history had the full overview?

I’m not expecting any “death bed” revelations. And if they did, there will be no records to prove it. I doubt if they kept minutes!

My apologies Mr Rooke. I didn’t know what you meant until I read, just now, the last sentence of my ‘review’ of Dylan Avery’s Loose Change. I’m afraid I was carried away by my own sarcastic rhetoric, for which I am deeply sorry.

Alas, I STILL haven’t seen your own film but when I get round to it will give it a far more open minded reception, on the back of my much more recent studies. (I’ve listened, on BigB’s suggestion, to Peter Dale Scott and on the strength of his seventy-five minute talk, have ordered his book, Road to 9/11.)

Am currently eating a pair of my own pants, alongside humble pie. Can only say in my feeble defence that my exposure to 9/11 truthism back then had been to its weaker and nuttier end. Should we ever meet, maybe I could get you a drink and apologise face to face. Regards.

Mr. Roddis, you really have nothing to apologise for. You are basically just going down the same road of most other people in the 9/11 truth movement, listening to people like David Ray Griffin and thinking that you are getting accurate information or rational evaluations of the evidence. What you are getting is a distorted misleading version of carefully selected facts. It is actually David Ray Griffin who should apologise to people for misleading them but really they have only themselves to blame for being so gullible. You don’t have to be one of them.

Hi Phillip,
As I had the misfortune to read your ‘review’ of my film ‘Incontrovertible’, [ a film by your own admission you did not even watch], I’m pleased you’ve put your foot on the first rung to reality. If you had watched my movie, some of the questions you are now struggling with would have been answered. The danger and intellectually folly of those who initially struggle with the truth of 9/11, is that rather than first examining the evidence impartially, they suffer a knee-jerk reaction of automatic denial because of the threat to their own world-view. In doing so, they actually create more conspiracies than the one they are dealing with. For example, you are already asking why the grand, theatrical, scale of 9/11??? Try not to. Just deal with with each piece of contradictory evidence as it arises. You’ve already started, which is good. But, whilst asking why such a scale for example, you self-justify a belief in the assumption it took many, many people to pull it off. That’s not necessarily true. Some basic research into the ownership of mainstream media will help you. Google things like the JP Morgan’s acquisition of US newspapers. Check out the attempted US coup in the 1930’s thwarted by decent men like Smedley Butler. You’re trying to analyse a game which has been in progress for many decades, if not centuries. 9/11 would never have been attempted were all the necessary pieces not in place – most importantly control of the mainstream media. As an ex BBC employee, I can tell you for a FACT BBC news were dumping evidence of war crimes by OUR troops in the Falklands in ’82. These only surfaced briefly in the 90’s and nothing much has been done even now. It only took a few orders by unknown figures in Whitehall to ensure that lid was put on. I know of people in BBC World News who didn’t even know about WTC 7 years after the event and they worked there on the day.

Study the ownership of the media, Phillip. Don’t be led down further rabbit holes where you invent questions that can only truly be answered by a new and impartial investigation. Honest copers don’t bother doing that, neither should you. Let’s hope the recent grand jury petition bears fruit.

The paper trail left by the perp’s of 9/11 is considerable. Why? Because, [as acknowledged by one of the prime suspects, Zbigniew Brzezinski] they grossly underestimated the Internet. And guess, what – look at what the corporate media controllers are trying to do now…?

Oh, and if you’d like a decent film on the subject which might help you on your journey, might I recommendhttps://incontrovertible911evidence.co.uk/

I think you’ll find the only ‘pants’ involved are yours when you trip over them 😉

Thanks Tony. I can admit to being wrong because, fundamentally, I’m more interested in what is true than in saving face. Again I apologise though. Not for being wrong – we can all be that – but for being scathing and all superior about a film I hadn’t even seen.

I may be a little further than first rung, since I’ve written on some things you point out – the corrosive ownership of the media for instance and, even more importantly, the corrosive influence of market forces in media revenue streams; including, indirectly, those of your former employer.

Having now accepted – belatedly but BLTN as they say – the empirical case against the official account, my logical objections are being revisited. Those logical objections were to the cruder end of truthism. Having listened to Dale Scott, I’m more open to the idea of a deep state which allowed 9/11 to happen – and may well have been taken aback itself by the scale of the attack. I’m not offering that as truth, by the way, just voicing another belated realisation: that there are many narratives in play, not just two.

Hi Phillip,
Agreed. There is so much at play here. The Let It Happen On Purpose [LIHOP] scenario is very popular, although I personally see it as a somewhat sugar-coated pill for those not quite prepared to believe the US authorities would engineer this from the get-go. I think the MIHOP scenario [Make it Happen on Purpose] holds more credence, for me at least. We know that elements within the US Government have tried to do it before [Northwoods in ’62] and that the lead orchestrator in that [having been refused by JFK] was sent over to Europe after which we saw the rise of Gladio and a series of false flag events which even the BBC acknowledge.

I think it’s no coincidence that Trump recently tore up John Brennan’s security clearance. JB has MANY questions to answer over the 9/11 hijacker’s being given an effective red-carpet into the US from Saudi following his stint in charge of that kind of thing in Saudi. Michael Springman'[whistleblower] is already on the record for stating their passports were issued by the CIA. I find this more than turning a blind eye. There are so many other occasions when these alleged criminal masterminds [the 19] appear to have been protected, guided and outright assisted by US intelligence. Bear in mind, these supposedly Muslim fundamentalists having spent weeks attending strip clubs, boozing, doing cocaine, literally decided to turn into ‘good Islamic boys’ one morning and give their lives for Allah. NOTHING adds up about the LIHOP theory – to me at least.

With ‘Incontrovertible’ I tried to illustrate that these events [false flags] are the norm rather than rare cases. I’d have had a 5 hour movie at least if I’d included things like the Newburgh 4, Lockerbie etc.
But you’ll see there’s more than enough to establish a pattern of regularity, which for me sadly renders the LIHOP scenarios untenable. Either way anyway, we’re talking treason, mass murder, organised crime on an epic scale.

You’re quite right. There is some truly nutty crap out there. Some of it orchestrated disinfo, some of it from people who are just too damned lazy or stupid to research properly and are quite happy to cling to the most theatrical of nonsense such as ‘no planes’ and holograms.

I’ve interviewed a few emergency workers who were there on the day. They too have MANY colleagues who think the official story stinks. When they’ve tried to speak out they’ve been offered psych’ evaluations or threatened with the sack. The BBC tends to ignore that side of 9/11 and if you stick with the mainstream media you’d never know these people exist. Having taken on the BBC in a courtroom,
I soon realised silence was their greatest weapon. They didn’t even turn up, wouldn’t even answer my invite to turn up!

I’m still hopeful the grand jury petition will prove useful. How THAT is treated is going to be very interesting, given the US now has a President who is record stating he wants a new investigation.

The physics of the collapses show the present government explanation for them cannot possibly be correct. There had to be charges in the buildings, and it isn’t hard to understand that they could not have gotten there without some form of insider involvement.

What that insider involvement was exactly can only be determined by a legitimate law enforcement investigation.

Why it was done can be discussed, to some degree, due to the actions taken in the aftermath and the fairly sound assumption that those providing the impossible government explanation can’t simply be stupid.

Hi Tony,
You’re preaching to the converted here my friend. You and I have communicated privately many times when I was making Incontrovertible and liaising with some of the Fire Brigade boys here in
the UK. Hoping this finds you well.
Best,
Tony R

A conclusion about controlled demolition is not about physics or structures it is about people coming up with a plan and carrying out a plan – to commit mass murder. That is not about physics or science. The analysis of it is not about physics or science. It is about people. If someone tells me that people planned to do something then I can look at the plan and ask myself if the plan makes sense – to the people who are supposed to have planned it. I don’t have to ask the people who say there was a plan. It is not their plan. I don’t have to ask an engineer or an architect if someone else’s plan to commit mass murder makes sense. They could be the last people I would ask.
“Why it was done can be discussed, to some degree, due to the actions taken in the aftermath and the fairly sound assumption that those providing the impossible government explanation can’t simply be stupid.”
Assessing evidence is not a linear process. You don’t come to conclusions based on an evaluation of some evidence and then no matter what those conclusions are or the implications of them or a rational evaluation of them tells you , just ‘discuss it to some degree’ as if the conclusions were not the result of your assessment of the evidence. All evidence has to be evaluated and re-evaluated. If an implausible scenario is the result of your conclusions you don’t just change your ideas about what is plausible, until it becomes plausible.

apologies for the late reply. I’d assumed this thread had run its course, but have just checked in, almost a week after your September 16 posts.

I’m aware of the Northwoods plan, and its author being sacked by JFK, only to get a senior NATO post within the year! I’m also aware of truly scary thinking behind the Project for a New American Century, and America’s god-given right to ‘full spectrum dominance’. I don’t think I ever doubted that sections of the American ruling class would deem such a false flag operation too evil to be contemplated. My doubts in respect of the MIHOP scenario were and are on practical grounds. That said, I accept now that it is foolish to rule out anything on other than empirical grounds.

Do people think that the US when contemplating their military strength would be likely to say let’s have maybe the strongest airforce but let’s have a weaker navy that any likely opponent?. Let’s have a strong army but maybe we should have a weak airforce? I for one wouldn’t see much logic in that.
The PNAC document is a defense review. When people have a defense review they have to ask what possible emergencies might arise and what to invest in and what not to invest in. The PNAC document advocated phasing out aircraft carriers and ending the F22 project and concentrating resources elsewhere. Governments do defense reviews all the time. I would love to see a day when there was no need for armies or military forces. I must have heard people in the truth movement talk about the PNAC document 1000 times and always they just extract one phrase from it and then they misrepresent and paraphrase and misquote that one phrase. I did once hear someone actually quote it accurately. Once in 17 years.

If you read the Northwoods document you will see that no where in it does it say people would be killed. The closest in comes to it is where it talks about assassination attempts on Cuban exiles ‘even to the extent of wounding’. The only reason there is a suggestion about swapping planes is so that people would not be killed. Otherwise they could just shoot down or put a bomb on a plane.
It’s a bit of a step to go from thinking you might consider wounding people to murdering thousands, some of whom you might even know, or be family members of people you know.
And why was the Northwoods document drawn up in the first place? Why would they need to create some false pretext for invading Cuba? Because they knew the Cubans weren’t going to provide an actual pretext. The Cubans had just had their revolution and they weren’t going to go attacking the US. With 9/11 Al Qaeda had openly declared war on the US and urged muslims everywhere to attack US military or civilians everywhere in the world and had already attacked US embassies killing hundreds of people and attacked a US Navy ship. (Can anyone name any one of the hundreds of people killed in the embassy bombings in Kenya or Tanzania? Or any of the disfigured, crippled victims who survived? ). You don’t need to go creating elaborate false attacks on yourself when there are people who are queuing up to do it themselves. And then 9/11 was carried out by a group of mainly Saudis, one of the few middle eastern countries that have anyway close ties with the US. I don’t see anything in Northwoods about creating a pretext for invading Cuban by staging attacks by groups of Canadians.

You will agree though there’s a difference between covertly permitting or conceding to the murder of innocent people and actually stating the intention to do so in a printed document. Deniability would require such things are never directly alluded to and face-saving pretences about empty planes etc are used. That doesn’t change the fact false flags have happened and the US has been murdering innocent people for years.

Btw – How do you know any of those incidents were what they were claimed to be? Isn’t the time for taking any media narrative on trust well and truly over?

So therefore I should read the Northwoods document and where it talks about swapping planes and shooting down an empty one or blowing up an empty ship and non – existent victims I should say they were planning to kill hundreds of civilians instead. I didn’t know I could do that. Can I maybe re-write the Northwoods document and change what it says to what I imagine it should say ?
‘Isn’t the time for taking any media narrative on trust well and truly over? ‘
‘Narrative’ and ‘story’ are really useful words. They allow people to reduce everything to some kind of flimsy insubstantial ‘what we were told’ fiction that they can quote and point to as evidence if it suits their theory, or dismiss as a lie if it doesn’t. Practically every piece of evidence about 9/11 has come from the media and government sources. Where would David Ray Griffin get anything to put in his books otherwise? He said once that he actually did some research himself and contacted a witness. Once. Where would the History Commons be since it is all quotes from the media and government sources?

When evidence of medical or engineering malpractice comes to light, it is not common to ask those who object to the malpractice, then to perform the operation or produce their own version of an engineering design, in lieu of the professionals. That is the responsibility of competent professionals. By the same token, when it is shown that authorities charged with investigation have performed incompetently, it is irrelevant whether those who have identified the professionals’ failings might have their own theories. They (we) have every right to demand, and indeed must demand, that competent authorities should be called upon to perform the investigation that is mandated by law, and that they produce credible, evidence based results.

If the primary nature of 9/11 was a psyop or ‘mind capture to narrative manipulation’ by insiders of sufficient capacity to plan, recruit or induce a broad spectrum compliance on a need to know basis, and execute not only the event but its staging and narrative outcome overriding all and any conflicting evidences with an asserted narrative, then it was a deliberate switching of the mind/world to an openly post-truth politic – in terms of a world stage display of power to ‘make reality’ and defend the lie against true, as the precursor and ‘justification’ to launching open ‘war on terror’ that effectively overrides national sovereignty or any process of transparency and accountability and of course denies such rights to its own citizens under threat of ‘National Security’.

Many different negative agendas align within it and operate through it and its nature has been to reset world thinking within a framework of perpetual war as the basis of a new world order ostensibly fighting to manage sickness in a world where cure or healing has been SHOUTED DOWN! by an act of terror that reinforces ‘terror’ as the ‘enemy’ that it uses
to justify projecting onto others and to the world at large.

Pharming or managing a ‘sick’ humanity is a parallel version to the military industrial complex. The core archetype to the ‘cry foul’ of the ‘victim’ as the enabler of attack, is the intent to eradicate the perceived symptoms of sickness as a way to evade the true cause coming home.

Symptoms or effects assigned cause are already a falsely flagged cause leading to a falsely based ‘war on’ whatever, along with the overriding demands, taxes and loss of freedoms that such a state demands and takes.

How is it that human beings can on the surface present a range of personality traits that seem within ranges of normality, and yet be the knowing or perhaps unwitting instruments of a deep state of personal dissociation – namely fear, rage and projective guilt by which to engage power struggle in guise of or in place of communication?

The surface consciousness’ is a ‘bubble reality’ relative to undercurrent belief and definition that frames the surface thinking and thus sets its range of ability to move outside conformity and compliance.

To be vigilant to THAT deceit is operating at cost of our true good and against its ability to trigger us into reaction and therefore into the frames of its deceit, calls for individuals to recognize where they are being induced to give attention and therefore worth and reality, so as to wake from fascination in horror or addiction to the dynamic of conflict – which effectively operates vengeance or the attempt to self-vindicate upon the hurt and loss of the other.

The idea that manipulating the world of others is the way of power is the way of becoming ever more obviously powerless to self-illusion that substitutes for and demands sacrifice of – true relations. No one can wake another from a dream they WANT to be true – even if it has turned to nightmare. But each has the innate capacity to disinvest from what is now clearly seen to be worthless at expense of worth , or meaningless at expense of meaning.

The extension of true worth and the appreciation of meaning, shared, is a different order of perception and experience.
Invested grievance makes this forever impossible as a hidden worship of evil or sin as power OVER Life.

One of the ways it is hidden is the denial in rejected-self that projects out onto others and attacks it there. The ‘enemy’ can shift or change to be anyone, anywhere at any time as long as never to be revealed in truth. Truth is not the first casualty of war so much as truth’s denial is the necessary predicate upon which war can be then be engaged.

The ‘power’ of the 9/11 deceit runs along with the exposure of a lack of substance apart from what fear or self aggrandisement can induce those who identify there, to give it.

What you choose to receive is your sovereign will and can only truly give in like kind.
Giving and receiving of a false currency is to trade in deceit as if to get something from another or indeed to get away from them or eradicate them from your bubble.

A popped or broken bubble is an opportunity for expansion in true curiosity. But grievance, hate and fear SHOUT down the willingness to listen. Truly feeling what we feel to a greater self honesty than such a mind would allow, is not an indulgence in self or projected self-sympathy but in a sense opening our own ‘Ground Zero’ as the result of the undoing of a split mind. What is part of our life is part of our life for better or for worse, but what is OUR part in setting the purpose our life experience serves?

Binra I have some sympathy, insofar as I follow its long and scantly punctuated expression, with your worldview. You write:

“How is it that human beings can on the surface present a range of personality traits that seem within ranges of normality, and yet be the knowing or perhaps unwitting instruments of a deep state of personal dissociation – namely fear, rage and projective guilt by which to engage power struggle in guise of or in”

Or as I would say, one core truth about the human condition appears to be that we are amazingly sophisticated and effective reasoning beings, with the emotional maturity of a chimpanzee.

Hi writerroddis
No you miss my point there. I make no moral judgement on anyone else. As I see it, judgement of a weak, unworthy and degraded humanity is the basis from which the claim to power goes forth and multiplies denial and division. (This can be seen within ourself as well as between us).

I was referring to the structure of human consciousness as the ‘matrix’ of definitions and beliefs that we generally operate within or under, and not to the personality level of a ‘narrative identity’ running as a surface of a deep state of dissociation from reality. And so I see the exposure of profound dis-integrity that runs beneath the mask of ‘normalcy’ or conformity and compliance to a such protective masking identity.

The thinking that runs (as) the mind in its version of the world is predicated upon an arrogant and ignorant and therefore blindly havoc-wreaking error or lie. That it is become very sophisticated and effective in passing off as true is a kind of mind-capture or unconsciousness. Above all else the lie needs an enemy, to seem to independently exist.

The lie and the father of it is nothing new. One definition of a lie is ‘anything passing off or wished and believed as true that is not’. If truth is greatly feared, then the lie offers a temporary ‘salvation’ by which the fear remains hidden. Once invested in or accepted, IT claims our power and protection, while truth is denied, demonised, and disregarded. Power taken unto ourself corrupts.

Regardless of how I punctuate, (sorry for any errors in that regard), I am speaking for and from an entirely different predicate and so it simply does not run on the old ‘operating system’.

I still have only the haziest sense of what you are saying, binra. And please don’t apologise for ‘errors’ of punctuation. I’m not a grammar pedant. But when I encounter prose as labyrinthine as yours, I think the writer is not clear in his/her mind on what s/he is thinking. That doesn’t mean the ideas aren’t valuable – simply not yet fully formed. With deepening understanding come clarity and the beauty of simplicity.

The narrative ‘reality’ of a highly complex defence system can seem to speak ‘simply’ in terms that reinforce the ‘self’ of such a system.
In other words a highly complex obfuscation can be traded in AS IF a legitimate currency of exchange.
The terms that you and of course the ‘many’, regard as ‘simple’ are partaking of a self and world construct that is enslaved under illusion of power.

The illusion of power is the attempt to use denial and rejection to get or become something in and for yourself alone (and by extension any group identity at expense of others).
The resulting ‘self’ or personality construct is a self-image given preference over true relation and inherently ‘at war’ with true relation – or more accurately – at war with itself as a means of blocking awareness of true relation.

I rest as both clear in my idea expression and consciously ‘on purpose’ in the sharing of the idea – whilst understanding that the framework of general discourse is largely ruling out the possibility of reception. I am not speaking to the ‘many’ but to the stirring of a curiosity or resonance from beneath or outside the framework of a mind that is lost in its own spin. The complexity of conflict management under narrative ‘simplicity’.

When new perspective is unwelcome, its messengers are generally ignored, denied or ridiculed – because to the herd or groupthink of mutually reinforcing definitions, ‘it is not what we are thinking now’ and the currently active paradigm is ‘too big to fail’.

The stark insanity of a 911 world is a total communication breakdown that yet runs as frameworks of conflicted and competing ‘meanings’ and thus makes ‘sense’ to a conflicted and competing ‘self’.
It is the identification with such a self that is the root insanity, but the undoing of such a misidentification MUST be an inside job. WE have to reveal ourselves to ourselves and recognize what we are NOT.
No one can convince or persuade anyone to know or accept what they are not the willingness and recognition of.

But the support for the illusion of power is disappearing from ‘under our feet’ notwithstanding a world predicated upon it, identified and invested in it and defending its investments as its very survival.
The illusion of power is powerlessness, or a corrupted mind-capture under illusion worshipped over true.

Because secretly, everyone here WANTS power to validate or vindicate their self and world, they can all flock together like birds of a feather and ‘speak the same coded language’. But true power is not hidden so much as being hidden BY the personal sense of lack seeking power – even if such power is but fig-leaves over a naked shame or horror.

Truth is not destructive so much as always new in its beholding. But to the investment in illusion, truth is feared and smeared or associated with pain of loss. And so the lie becomes at least a temporary ‘salvation’ from fear of total pain and loss – such that such sacrifice as the lie inherently incurs, is always chosen as the lesser ‘evil’ under a sense of clinging to the only ‘life’ it ‘knows’.

Fear of the ‘unknown’ is judgment of what we have no awareness of. In other words the projection of fears from a denied and evaded past onto an unborn future as the stamp of its boot on the face of the present.

At a certain perspective – it is ALL an ‘inside job’ …but hey’ – ‘look what you made me do!’ works as a displacement map for behaviour and thought we are unwilling to own. IN this way humans ‘create’ negative realities by assigning responsibility out and away from themselves – where they cannot change it!.

You cannot change the psychopathy in others but only recognize and release your own. But the very nature of the term as now used is a pejorative dehumanising justification for loving to hate and join in hate as if it makes us the ‘loving’ ones. THAT is how we ‘came in’ to a mad made world and yet now we are arriving at our beginning to know it for the first time. Awakening.

Those who love to hate must hate to love as a reversal in consciousness.

Oh its all the psychopath’s (evil’s) fault!
(KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!* *recurring)

Where is the LAST place we will look for truth or indeed the peace that only truth gives? Is it only when ALL illusion fails that the ‘prodigal son’ looks up from the trough?
Is ‘bottoming out’ the beginning of a capacity to truly receive and give from another place than ‘getting’?

Sorry, that last comment comes across as rude. I’ve no desire to do that, least of all with you, binra. I find your words highly convoluted (this isn’t a grammar thing: your sentences do parse in the main, once I decode the syntax) and have a mild resistance to a tone from the mountain top of The One Who Knows. But you are always courteous and I appreciate that.

I also read between the lines. Context provides the meanings of any content.

And I extend what I sketch into idea, to a sense of worthiness here but without all the coded preamble of social mores. So I risk coming over as a personal claim to know ‘more than’ or be ‘telling’ others, in giving form to ideas that are beneath or beyond any personal sense of claim. But I hold that what I sketch out is within anyone’s freedom and capacity to consider or not, and perhaps open into their own inner knowing that they then embody in their own way.

I live the willingness to stand in or abide with what I uncover as a result of noticing or ‘looking within, and this inherently involves withdrawing allegiance from what I no longer hold as true or helpful to who I am, and to the living world I love and share in. This living world includes our capacity to ‘wake’ from false thinking – despite that we may be deeply invested in its identity.

The 911 event is one example that illuminates the investment and attachment we can have in a reality that turns out not to be true – or rather not as believed, or not as we are told. The range of reactions to such a ‘breakdown in trust’ are many – with the first wave of reaction being most likely to be intended, expected or anticipated by the agencies of the psyop – for such it was in terms of the world of power struggle.

Any notion of freedom in the world as I see it – has to begin with freedom to watch the mind so as NOT to be baited into reaction and thereby phished into a false identity. Of course attempting to speak to those who ARE in such reaction is largely unheard – but the gift is truly given and that is where I rest.

In a world of deceit, (recognised as such), the true of giving and receiving is called upon to hold the conditions in which deceit cannot thrive, take root or find welcome. Hating the haters is a current trend that illuminates the shallowness of the would be liberal tolerance. Relationships can be used as conditional alliances of bubble realities in which to shut out and deny the hateful – and of course we do not like it when our hate comes home to roost because we hold ideas of what life, world or society SHOULD be – and while the bubble holds, we live as if to some degree, it is as we think it.

I have lived my own ‘ground zero’ moments, but have not sought to regain or get back to what was or seemed to have been, so much as go deeper for what truly wants to be, or more directly, opening and allowing what truly moves as the impulse of being. If I wrote to the marketplace of what is already accepted and presumed true, I would have no movement to write at all.

Living ahead of one’s time is not really possible but it is common for anyone who moves beyond the socially accepted ideas of their time to be unseen or misperceived. It goes with the territory. Be the representative of the future you desire to live without trying to change anyone else. Or go back to sleep in the idea that ‘if only we can change everyone else’, our future will be ‘saved’ from sleepwalking zombie apocalypse. (Note I hold apocalypse to mean revealing or drawing back the veil and not an inherently destructive shift of perspective and the desire to know the truth is not the desire for vengeance).

Cynicism states that changing yourself is vain, futile, and merely giving evil more power by not joining in hate to fight it.
(What form of collectivism joins in love FOR something?).
Evil flourishes when men believe themselves good, and do not face the evils in their own hearts but hide it, to then hate and fight it in selected others. Not that I say we are evil – but that we have the capacity to believe what is not true and act from it as if it is – from which evils arise inevitably. Is this a call for stamping out and eradicating the ignorant and arrogant ‘others’, or the call to correct the ignorance in ourselves as the basis for our more grounded communication and relationship with others. Communication and relationship is presumed to be something we already know and have tried, but while surface presentations are enacted, hidden agendas are pursued beneath appearances passing off as reality.

Ok – I now read your comment in context. I linked what you were talking about in relation to me with the 911 event in a way that could open new choices.

Narrative control is not only a political or corporate act but a facet of a personal identity that presents a simple cover story over a highly complex set of defences.

I do not ‘require’ you read what you are not inclined to read and so you can simply leave it.
If something is a chore or a struggle – why not do something more aligned with what you are truly interested in?
I do 😉

Slagging off Loose Change and Dylan Avery doesn’t get you anywhere in my book. And slagging off people who send you links is pretty pathetic too. You’ve arrived at certain conclusions – bully for you.
Most of the decent evidence was and is contained in long form audio and video – for instance the film of the 2 cops retracing their steps at the Pentagon, or the various analyses of Building 7’s collapse, or pyroclastic dust behaviour, or flashes seen in the upper floors of the towers, or the size of the hole in the Pentagon prior to collapse, or the many people who said they heard explosions in entrance lobbies.

Other evidence and timelines (covered admirably by James Corbett) is worthy of prose, but the overwhelming body needs to be seen and heard.

It’s also important to view the rise of doubt in the official story in conjunction with the arrival of YouTube which only kicked off in 2005. And let’s not forget that it was a lot harder to find conversations like the ones held here in the early 2000’s. My theory is that ‘they’ didn’t bank on the internet analysing the story.

Also in 2005, prior to Loose Change, a DVD called Confronting The Evidence was produced and distributed to book shops – I got my copy from The American Bookstore in Amsterdam. It’s a 3 hour conference. You need to invest the time.

Then we had the BBC Conspiracy files where they concluded that military grade thermate doesn’t work. Then we had The Thermate Debate film made for YouTube which proves conclusively that it does.

I very rarely get into 911 debates because, contrary to what I still see as an interesting and world changing event, most people treat the subject as a taboo.
If I do get into a conversation, I stick to one point, namely :

This review is a little short on consideration of actual evidence. You can never use numbers – what about the Holocaust?

There are probably a number of single pieces of evidence that can prove all on their own that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy. My favourite is the undisputed 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in the collapse of WTC-7, a 47-storey steel frame skyscraper and the third building to collapse at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 at 5.20pm.

Newton’s Third Law of Motion means that WTC-7 could not have collapsed in near free fall acceleration of 6.5 seconds (including 2.25 seconds of actual free fall) in almost perfect symmetry through the path of greatest resistance, without all resistance being removed at virtually the same time at the bottom of the building. For this to have happened, all its 82 steel support columns had to fail at almost the same time (the kink in the middle at the start indicates the central columns failing first by a fraction to make the building fall in on itself) and the only possible trigger for this was pre-positioned precision charges. It’s incontrovertible because – as they say – “the laws of physics didn’t take a holiday on 9/11.”

That’s all you need to prove that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy. Astounding, isn’t it?

Thanks flaxgirl. Naturally I disagree with your opening sentence. I not only ‘consider actual evidence’ but say, unequivocally, that in my view the evidence Griffin and Woodworth assembles crosses the threshold of plausibility to build a powerful prima facie case for rejecting NIST and all other strands of the ‘official account.

because “israel” had the motive, the opportunity, prior form, and the rest.
Dov Zakheim, believe it or not, had access to the WTC, the Pentagon (especially the Accounting Section, which was blowed up), and freaking passenger-jet remote-controllers.

‘Too big to fail’ does not only apply to banks – but to any self investment in a lie that – built upon and lived as real – cannot be allowed NOT to run as true. Strategies of masking defence start very early in human development and only become more sophisticated and ‘believable’ in a world of agreement to mask rather than truly meet. The fact that we make ‘rules’ that are then used against us by those who make their own rules is part of the liability of running on a mind of ‘rules’ rather than relational honesty.

My sense is that the false investments of human ignorance and arrogance even more than is currently being exposed, but that we can only take a step at a time or this step now – albeit in a crash course of evaded self-responsibility for the nature of self-deceit.

Disclosure may not be an ‘alien agenda’ out there – but in ‘here’. Alienation is not just isolating, but the separating from our true nature and the adaptation to run under a false.

Weak or false foundations strongly defended would speak the meaning more clearly. For all opinion is and remains mere opinion. But what you are the embodying act OF, you know.
A false foundation knows not what it is and therefore knows not what it does, and so seeks ‘authority’ from outside by which to bolster a sense of lack within – that masks so as to hide, cover and protect itself.
Growing in what we truly have is a true appreciation. But giving power to a sense of lack shall lose even the little it has.

So the ‘real difficulty’ with which you sympathise is a masking over what would open to a genuine appreciation.
The mind that has to
understand the mind,
that has Not yet understood
is looking back in attempt to recreate an ignorance as if it is understandable.

Whereas a current freedom from ignorance is a cause for celebration if allowed to register AS freedom rather than be instantly refitted to the ‘real difficulty’ of an insoluble problem.

The desire NOT to know operates until it is replaced by the desire TO know. The mind can and does shift ceaselessly in seeming to know something ELSE as the way to NOT see the otherwise obvious and in setting insoluble problems or ‘wars on whatever’ can dedicate resources and develop abilities in ‘problem management’. But the wisdom of ‘be still and know’ is the relinquishment of problem as the definer or validator of your life to an undefended receptivity to simply – but not less than – being.

Knowing as the feeling of being is self-awarenss itself, rather than self-reference in problem or lack or conflict. Knowing is formless and not ‘about’ so much as beheld or embraced, and so cannot be directly translated into symbolic reflections and verbal concepts. This is to say in modern terms that it cannot be weaponised or marketised but only shared.

The real difficulty or reality-blocking problem may be that of an unshared sense of self conceiving itself as a problem to be solved. However, a willingness to accept shared reality transforms the problem to a matter of definitional perspective. That is to say, how we are seeing it is part of what it is being for us.

The (ever shifting) narrative dictate states there is only one basis to think and see and act – with all else being framed as dissonant to ‘officially accepted reality’. Freedom to be is the freedom to be inspired to be moved by a different drum and witness to facets of a greater perspective.

Freedom to be already Is integral to our being – and yet is not accepted or appreciated under the illusion of a freedom to judge being, and thereby seem to have power by which to be something we are not. The mind of judgement is the ‘divide and rule’ of a control mentality that usurps the naturally balancing expression of life as one in all, and all in one. But it secretly operates ‘divide to rule out’. This is the nature of a mind that MUST maintain conflict to seem to exist as both power and protector to a sense of self apart (from true relational being). This is ‘psycho-pathy’. But nothing has the power to split off or escape its own being – except in concept – taken and experienced as true.

Ideas do us as we would do unto. As you sow, so shall you reap. This is self-serving justice and not a coercion of will from outside or above. It is also a pay as you go affair once the true nature of choice has woken from ‘no real choices at all’.
The idea of blame is that of offsetting guilt and conflict in the self by redistributing to others or to God, the weather or your parent.
The idea of responsibility as response-ability is the idea of using the power of choice for oneself – where self gives only as it would receive. Because what you put out is what you get back.
The idea of guilt will SHOUT that down because guilt is the power by which to disempower, undermine and seem to make a power in its own right.
Self interest operates in human affairs regardless how insanely our ‘self’ is defined and believed by acting as if that was true. True Self interest gives because it was created by giving and receiving. False self interest seeks to get because it was made by getting.

Follow OffGuardian via Email

OffG on Twitter

OffG’s editors

About

OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages...Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

If you’re also sick of being stifled, moderated, slandered as 'Putinbots' or worse, and censored to oblivion on any of the Readers’ Comments sections of our mainstream press, come and tell us about it.